Wednesday, August 31, 2011

The web-journal "The Sidney Morning Herald" (smh.com.au) has published an article titled "Mental illness rise linked to climate". The article begins with "RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says. The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse. As many as one in five people reported ''emotional injury, stress and despair'' in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a preview of life under unrestrained global warming."

I wonder if this is a real story, if the report "Climate of Suffering" has really been published, and if the article gives a correct account. Also, if existing: Who wrote the report? What is the "Climate Institute"?

Thursday, August 11, 2011

In a series of interviews with participants of the Climate Science Center of Excellence CliSAP in Hamburg, Mike Schäfer and Hans von Storch have interviewed Eduardo Zorita (as #5 so far). The interview is available in English and German.

I find this an interesting study, as it deals with the probability of having stagnant periods in the warming - at least in the artificial world of climate models, where we know that the increase in GHGs has a significant effect (even if skeptics may want to argue: falsely so):

The Abstract reads:
"Over the period 2003–2010, the upper ocean has not gained any heat, despite the general expectation that the ocean will absorb most of the Earth's current radiative imbalance. Answering to what extent this heat was transferred to other components of the climate system and by what process(‐es) gets to the essence of understanding climate change. Direct heat flux observations are too inaccurate to assess such exchanges. In this study we therefore trace these heat budget variations by analyzing an ensemble of climate model simulations. The analysis reveals that an 8‐yr period without upper ocean warming is not exceptional. It is explained by increased radiation to space (45%), largely as a result of El Niño variability on decadal timescales, and by increased ocean warming at larger depths (35%), partly due to a decrease in the strength of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Recently‐observed changes in these two large‐scale modes of climate variability point to an upcoming resumption of the upward trend in upper ocean heat content."

Friday, August 5, 2011

"While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs."

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

In the recent issue of nature (vol 475 28 July 2011), Jeff Tollefson reported about a pamphlet of the Heartland Institute from 2007. Results from our 2003 survey among climate scientists were used for the statement “The survey clearly shows that the debate over why climate is changing is still underway, with nearly half of the climate scientists disagreeing with what is often claimed to be a ‘consensus view’”. Tollefson goes on to accurately state that “In the survey, nearly 56% of climate scientists agreed that human activity is causing climate change, 14% were unsure and 30% disagreed”. Tollefson also goes on to state that Bast [founder of the Heartland Institute] “dismisses the findings of a follow up survey by Bray and von Storch [this is our 2008 survey] which found that more than 85% of the responding scientists agreed that human activity is behind climate change.” - also an accurate interpretation of the survey data. Tollefson spoke to one of us (HvS), and we find his research done well.

Sustainable use of KLIMAZWIEBEL

The participants of KLIMAZWIEBEL are made of a diverse group of people interested in the climate issue; among them people, who consider the man-made climate change explanation as true, and others, who consider this explanation false. We have scientists and lay people; natural scientists and social scientists. People with different cultural and professional backgrounds. This is a unique resource for a relevant and inspiring discussion. This resource needs sustainable management by everybody. Therefore we ask to pay attention to these rules:

1. We do not want to see insults, ad hominem comments, lengthy tirades, ongoing repetitions, forms of disrespect to opponents. Also lengthy presentation of amateur-theories are not welcomed. When violating these rules, postings will be deleted.2. Please limit your contributions to the issues of the different threads.3. Please give your name or use an alias - comments from "anonymous" should be avoided.4. When you feel yourself provoked, please restrain from ranting; instead try to delay your response for a couple of hours, when your anger has evaporated somewhat.5. If you wan to submit a posting (begin a new thread), send it to either Eduardo Zorita or Hans von Storch - we publish it within short time. But please, only articles related to climate science and climate policy.6. Use whatever language you want. But maybe not a language which is rarely understood in Hamburg.